i get a chuckle out of the geniuses on here who spout off about simmons' lack of bball IQ, or his 'putting down' of canada, the raptors etc...because it only drives home the point that those who believe this don't have a clue what they're talking about.

to qualify...i'm about as anti-boston as there is. i disagree with simmons on quite a bit, and i find his style grating. but what i've found over the years is that he actually does know what he's talking about. while many of his contemporaries are pundit-ing away and trying their damnedest to appease the masses, he's been a fairly objective critic. sure, he sees things through celtic-coloured glasses, and if that's enough to disqualify everything he says, well, that's on you.

as for the article, and the section on the raps - how is what he wrote in any way disrespectful to canada or raptor fans? is something he wrote untrue? please, indulge me in the greatest moments in raptor history. i'll give you 5 minutes. not sure what we'll talk about for the remaining 4 m 45 seconds tho...

as for the trade idea...i'm not sure why it's so bad (if it could be made to work under the CBA, which shouldn't be too difficult...a shuffling of the deck chairs more than anything). nash ain't winning in LA this year, and the likelihood that they'll be able to retool on the fly and be a chip contender before his contract is up is probably at about 3%. if he's going to be on a shitty team, it might as well be on the raptors, who have a clear need for a back-up PG & some legit veteran leadership. if you're in the TANKTANKTANK camp, well, his role can be suitably diminished, and it's not like this is '06 nash anyway. and if you're in the camp that believes they need to start creating a winning culture & push for the playoffs while developing young talent, who better than a guy like nash to bring on board? i was dead-set against them going after him last year (and the resultant fields contract - BARF then, BARF now), but it makes more sense now than it did then.

look, simmons certainly doesn't need me defending him, and for all the deadspin fans out there, he makes a perfect & convenient target. but maybe let's not be so quick to dismiss an idea from someone because of our predisposed feelings towards that person, m'kay? and before we propagate misinformation about how simmons feels about the raps & canada, maybe take a minute & actually look into some of what he's written about both first.

lol

I get a chuckle out of geniuses who put their nose in a conversation taking a stab at another and then proceed to tell us all how it really is. It is a forum no? Exchange of ideas and opinions? Isn't that why we're here?

I don't question Simmons' basketball intelligence or writing abilities. I don't claim to be superior to the man in any way, except height and weight. I do question the premise of his proposed trade because it doesn't work.

Simmons is great. Best writer out there (by a margin) and most entertaining / relate-able sports personality going today.

This trade is a horrible idea only in that in cements us in mediocrity. However, if for some reason, we catch lightning in a bottle and JV/TR outperform and we are actually competing with what we have now .. .then, hey .. why not?

To me, if you are in the "win now" camp .. doesnt SN (even at his stage) bring more than AG and LK?

If you are in the "go all out for 2014 draft" (i wont use the T word as people are so offended / jaded by it), then this is a completely ridiculous idea ..

Simmons is great. Best writer out there (by a margin) and most entertaining / relate-able sports personality going today.

This trade is a horrible idea only in that in cements us in mediocrity. However, if for some reason, we catch lightning in a bottle and JV/TR outperform and we are actually competing with what we have now .. .then, hey .. why not?

To me, if you are in the "win now" camp .. doesnt SN (even at his stage) bring more than AG and LK?

If you are in the "go all out for 2014 draft" (i wont use the T word as people are so offended / jaded by it), then this is a completely ridiculous idea ..

By taking on Steve Nash you continue to keep the noose around your neck with regards to flexibility. I get the impression Ujiri is trying to make moves that increase opportunities and assets. Nash and his contract only tighten the noose after getting a little wiggle room with trading Bargnani.

if there were no other factors to consider, I'd be all over Kleiza/Gray for Nash.

By taking on Steve Nash you continue to keep the noose around your neck with regards to flexibility. I get the impression Ujiri is trying to make moves that increase opportunities and assets. Nash and his contract only tighten the noose after getting a little wiggle room with trading Bargnani.

if there were no other factors to consider, I'd be all over Kleiza/Gray for Nash.

Totally agree. Im in the camp of move one of Gay or DD to get flexibility / cap space. If you have that mindset .. this is absolutely idiotic.

But, if we are keeping both DD (4 years) and RG (2 years) and the brutal LF deal (2 years) (and even AJ's team option) - what flexibility do we REALLY expect to have over the next two years? In that light, what does the Nash contract actually stop us from doing that we could have done without him?

While Simmons was somehwat joking .. I think this was the criux of his point .. if the Raps stay on their current plan .. we dont have any flexibility at all until 3 years from now .. so even a bad Nash doesnt really hurt anything we are trying to do.

While Simmons was somehwat joking .. I think this was the criux of his point .. if the Raps stay on their current plan .. we dont have any flexibility at all until 3 years from now so even a bad Nash doesnt really hurt anything we are trying to do.

Doesn't hurt anything but our pride. We were spurned by Nash when we went above and beyond everything any other team did for him and now that he isn't working for the lakers we are supposed to come save them from themselves. I was a huge supporter of getting Nash but luckily we dodged a bullet and I don't particularily feel we should bail out the lakers from thier mess.

The proposed deal of klieza and gray for nash only helps one team, while the other gets a story to tell. This is exactly what BC would do but not Ujiri, he wants more, we deserve more, we are not a dumping spot. If this deal throws in some picks or takes fields away then you think about it, but that won't happen.

Every single move should be projecting us forward not left or right. Let the other gm be the one to make the mistake.

Totally agree. Im in the camp of move one of Gay or DD to get flexibility / cap space. If you have that mindset .. this is absolutely idiotic.

But, if we are keeping both DD (4 years) and RG (2 years) and the brutal LF deal (2 years) (and even AJ's team option) - what flexibility do we REALLY expect to have over the next two years? In that light, what does the Nash contract actually stop us from doing that we could have done without him?

While Simmons was somehwat joking .. I think this was the criux of his point .. if the Raps stay on their current plan .. we dont have any flexibility at all until 3 years from now .. so even a bad Nash doesnt really hurt anything we are trying to do.

Thats his schtick. He fancies himself weaving a particular viewpoint wrapped in a comedic parody. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. Of course he has a national audience and readers in eg. Topeka, Kansas have a good chuckle at the Raptor and Canadian references. I am sure the LAL readership are ecstatic at the possibilities to getting ready for another opportunity to scraping their knees bending before LBJ etc next year as well.

I like reading Simmons' stuff, tho he really doesn't write as much anymore with all the TV stuff he's up to these days. He's actually always been a pretty great nba writer imho. I honestly don't think the trade is that far fetched. Especially when you think about how much Leweike talked up making the raps CANADA'S TEAM! and who better to be the figurehead? He's old as hell, sure, but have you seen the pg's probably coming out in the draft next year? what are we really trying to win this year?

Simmons is great. Best writer out there (by a margin) and most entertaining / relate-able sports personality going today.

This trade is a horrible idea only in that in cements us in mediocrity. However, if for some reason, we catch lightning in a bottle and JV/TR outperform and we are actually competing with what we have now .. .then, hey .. why not?

To me, if you are in the "win now" camp .. doesnt SN (even at his stage) bring more than AG and LK?

If you are in the "go all out for 2014 draft" (i wont use the T word as people are so offended / jaded by it), then this is a completely ridiculous idea ..

hmmm, if I have this right, you say something offensive toward the "people" that you imply you're not offending (apparently by not using a simple word that you "hide" by not spelling it all out), which describes an offensive concept, whatever language it's cloaked in. Cute, clever, cu..?

1) Strongly agree
2) Strongly DISagree (I learn a lot more about the game from Zach Lowe than Simmons)
3) Agree

I think if it was Fields + Kleiza you think about it. Nash would be an awesome back up point guard.

That said, somewhere out there (LA) someone (Bill Simmons) is reading this thread and laughing to himself. I swear, before he writes an article he thinks to himself, "What's the most incredible thing I can write, that's just plausible enough, to get people to talk about it?" Then writes the article, realizes it isn't quite ridiculous enough, and rewrites it 2 more times. He's a self-admitted troll.

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

hmmm, if I have this right, you say something offensive toward the "people" that you imply you're not offending (apparently by not using a simple word that you "hide" by not spelling it all out), which describes an offensive concept, whatever language it's cloaked in. Cute, clever, cu..?

You picked up it up well! My exact point is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of tanking .. but people get all up in arms "I wouldnt tank!" "No way .. you have to try to win!" "I dont want to watch a bunch of guys loafing around and not trying!"

The only thing you missed is I wasnt trying to not offend those people .. I was just trying to use a different term, because I think when people step back and think about the flexibility /rebuild concept without the connotation of overpaid, lazy players not giving a shit .. then they will be much more likely to support the concept.

Totally agree. Im in the camp of move one of Gay or DD to get flexibility / cap space. If you have that mindset .. this is absolutely idiotic.

But, if we are keeping both DD (4 years) and RG (2 years) and the brutal LF deal (2 years) (and even AJ's team option) - what flexibility do we REALLY expect to have over the next two years? In that light, what does the Nash contract actually stop us from doing that we could have done without him?

While Simmons was somehwat joking .. I think this was the criux of his point .. if the Raps stay on their current plan .. we dont have any flexibility at all until 3 years from now .. so even a bad Nash doesnt really hurt anything we are trying to do.

Take away Richardson and Camby and the Raptors are looking at about $57.6M next year as of now assuming Gay picks up his option and Amir is kept as well.

In not taking on Nash the Raptors would have about $3-4M in cap space (projections of $62M cap next season), the top up exception, and the ability to make trades taking back 150%+$100k compared to outgoing salary. They could also use the full MLE if they choose to without having to worry about the hard cap because they'd be so far away from it.

If they took Nash, they lose possible cap space, have the same situation with the hardcap as this year.

It might not be a big deal but small things can become significant stumbling blocks when dealing with the CBA.

Take away Richardson and Camby and the Raptors are looking at about $57.6M next year as of now assuming Gay picks up his option and Amir is kept as well.

In not taking on Nash the Raptors would have about $3-4M in cap space (projections of $62M cap next season), the top up exception, and the ability to make trades taking back 150%+$100k compared to outgoing salary. They could also use the full MLE if they choose to without having to worry about the hard cap because they'd be so far away from it.

If they took Nash, they lose possible cap space, have the same situation with the hardcap as this year.

It might not be a big deal but small things can become significant stumbling blocks when dealing with the CBA.

If their objective is to clear cap to be a major player in free agency then they shouldn't be using the MLE at all.

If their objective has nothing to do with cap dumping, and I think this is the case based on MJ's comments, then who cares about the cap number as long as they're not paying taxes for a non-contender? If Nash is brought in I think it should be for basketball reasons and maybe for long term organizational reasons and not to jockey for a little extra cap space a year early.

When it comes to identifying an exact owner, in this situation it's all about who has the worst argument against the idea. There is no one single figure that can deny the wishes of everyone else, as in a simpler arrangement, eg. Ralph Wilson with the Bills. The possible candidates are Bell/Rogers stockholders, executives, board members, MLSE board members et al. but Leiweke is the one hired to chairman the board and manage the decision-making with the day-to-day managers, so as far as I'm concerned, Leiweke is the owner. You may disagree, but there are strong cases against anyone else you might name.

Yes, they traded 7, but everybody in the known universe knew they needed to get rid of him. The problem I have with all of the talking is, previous regimes have also had good salesmen flapping their lips at the press. Leiweke says he wants a perennial championship contender. This roster is not that thing. And I have no faith that it will be, because faith is meaningless. When it happens, then I will believe it.

BTW - "changes" -- Didn't the previous GM bring in 5-8 new scrubs every year? And weren't enough fans fooled by that into thinking those were really meaningful steps in the right direction?

So the OTPP sold MLSE (and the Raptors) to Leiweke?

And then Leiweke hired himself?

C'mon.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the roster but change doesn't happen overnight. The Raptors could go out and trade everyone I'm sure, but will that give you a championship roster? No.

What has changed with the Raptors in the last year?

Ownership - check

CEO - check

Raptors GM - check

Raptors front office - check

Raptors scouting - check

Raptors business ops - check

assistant coaches - check

longest tenured Raptor - check

This started when you said you wish the Raptors had serious ownership. With just about everyone from the Colangelo era gone (outside the roster, of course, but with a GM who has been on a little more than a month I'm not sure your expectations are reasonable) I'm not sure how much more serious they can be about wanting to change the direction of the franchise. If they were content on being profitable (which they most definitely were with Colangelo), why the change? To please the fans who even when upset help the franchise turn a profit?

There's no easy answer to the question 'who is the Raptors owner?' You did not offer an alternative. I want one name, not an abstraction, like 'this or that group'.

I have been following sports across different leagues and teams since approximately 1990. I have seen many executives fired, owners change, coaches fired, and player movement. None of the changes you listed above, which are fairly common, guarantee any kind of change in the w/l column. What usually does make a difference is the kinds of things Prokhorov has forced through with the Nets. Or Riles has done with the Heat. Or Buss did with the Lakers. Or Ed DeBartolo did with the 49ers. They didn't spend a lot of time patting themselves on the backs in press conferences and interviews, they just went out and got the best ball players.

I can give you three names: Bell, Rogers, and Larry T.
2/3rds are owned by corporations and 1/3 by an individual.

I get your point though - sort of. I think you are confusing ownership with basketball executives in some case (Mickey Arison owns Miami, not Riley). You need big shots to win. I mean lets look at:

Pat Riley: he won his first championship with Miami after 11 years (yet the actual owner is Arison who won after 18 years).

Mark Cuban: he won his first championship with Dallas after 11 years of ownership.

Prokhorov: he won his first championship with Brooklyn/New Jersey after.... oh wait, nearly 4 years and nothing, well, a playoff appearance.

Jerry Buss: he won his first championship, well, immediately. It didn't hurt to have Magic and Kareem though.

Calm down, Brandon. TL has been on the job for just over 2 months and Ujiri for just over a month. As for patting himself on the back, TL had the history of Toronto thrown in his face when he first arrived when the man has not had a thing to do with it. It seems only fair he throw his own history back.

Every off-season, some US media guy makes an off-handed comment that tweaks the Raptors fan-base (e.g. Barkley, Simmons, Hollinger, etc...). Every off-season, the Raptors fan-base reacts with Pavlovian consistently at the supposed indignity and disrespect. At the end of every regular season the Raptors fan-base is proven wrong yet again, and ends up eating their words. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.